Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The Hammer Cpu

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 14, 2002 12:23:13 PM

Will the hammer be out by Late June early July

Once you go AMD, You never Go back!!

More about : hammer cpu

March 14, 2002 12:28:44 PM

No, the Hammer is predicted to be released by the end of the year.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
March 14, 2002 2:45:31 PM

like when December.. Is it Worth the Wait.. from june till then...

Once you go AMD, You never Go back!!
Related resources
March 14, 2002 2:53:26 PM

Well... it probably will be the Fastest processor around
I'd wait for him since its a 64bit processor and a 64bit OS will benifit nicely from the 64bit (more registers ,64bit ALUs etc), there are some talks about 64bit windows XP for Hammer.

This post is best viewed with common sense enabled
March 14, 2002 2:59:21 PM

Quote:
there are some talks about 64bit windows XP for Hammer.


Only problem being, if Microsoft hasn't even started coding for x86-64, how good a kernel could they crank out in ~6 months for release?

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
Don't step in the sarcasm!
March 14, 2002 3:19:46 PM

I don't think they're going to release a completely new kernel but rather, extensions to the 32-bit kernel like Win32s for Windows 3.1. It's going to be messy though.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
March 14, 2002 3:24:32 PM

I'm not a serious gamer, heck not even casual any more. I'm running off a PIII-450 with a 16 MB TNT card. I'm actually starting to get interested in gaming again. Does anyone think that the Hammer will make a good gaming rig and is it worth it to upgrade to a Hammer when it becomes available? Especially since there is no software (gaming or otherwise) that I know of that would take full advantage of the new processor. Would I be better off waiting until sometime in 2003 when motherboards are more likely to support 8x AGP, DDR-400/DDR-II, Serial ATA, etc.
March 14, 2002 3:29:09 PM

"Worth it" depends on the price. The Hammer will not be as cheap as Athlon, we'll have to wait and find out about performance and price.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
Don't step in the sarcasm!
March 14, 2002 5:37:46 PM

I was saying "worth it," because even if the Hammer was availble this year is there any software that would take abvantage of it? Kinda like upgrading to the GF3 graphics card as soon as it comes out only to find out that the games that will use the extra power are still only just coming out are will be released in the next few months.
Having the raw power initially is nice, but power without the ability to do more work is wasted. I'm just wondering if anyone has any idea when any 64-bit programs will be availble. I'd hate to be one of the early adopters only to find out that by the time any decent software is available you now need the 3.5Ghz Clawhammer with 4GB of DDRII memory in order to use it.
March 14, 2002 5:50:05 PM

You would need a new operating system from Microsoft to be able to use the 64-bit capabilities of the Hammer. Your other option would be to use Linux. You can then make a 64-bit application yourself. I do not expect there to be a huge rush to create 64-bit applications. The amount of memory in everyone's computers is currently less than the maximum amount of memory that can be addressed by 32-bit processors. As a software engineer, it would be a waste of my time to make a 64-bit version.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 14, 2002 6:05:10 PM

As an amateur programmer, I like to fiddle with new APIs and new processor extensions so I can't wait to get my hands on the Hammer and any type of 64-bit OS support.


AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
March 14, 2002 6:05:35 PM

Unless you're a scientific software engineer. (Like me.) ;) 

Even then though, I doubt that my company will bother putting any real effort into a 64-bit upgrade until at least a quarter of our customers are commonly running our apps on a 64-bit OS.

<pre>If you let others think for you, you're the
only one to blame when things go wrong.</pre><p>
March 14, 2002 9:02:59 PM

Rayy, but its worth the programmers time to code for sse2?

You do realize that all an app needs is to be recompiled to take advantage of x86-64 right?


Your statement if you stand by it affects sse2 just as much as the x86-64 platform, so, I ask you, if you wouldnt support 64 bit x86, how can you justify sse2?

(bearing in mind, that apps in 64bits gain performance over 32 bit apps)


Hmmmm?

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
March 14, 2002 11:10:06 PM

A little off-topic, I noticed when you address Ray, you always seem to double the Y in his name. Is that a typo or some kind of call or nick you call him with?

Oh and I get the feel there's gonna be a debate springing over 64bit vs 32bit again here....

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
March 15, 2002 1:40:28 AM

Quote:
Rayy, but its worth the programmers time to code for sse2?

What time? Run the installer for the Intel compiler, check a box, and hit "Rebuild all." The Intel compiler does a great job at using SSE2 without the need to do any special programming. Is AMD planning on releasing a similar compiler for x86-64?


Quote:
You do realize that all an app needs is to be recompiled to take advantage of x86-64 right?

You also need an operating system that supports it. Even if an application could somehow manage to switch into 64-bit mode without operating system support, it would get completely screwed up whenever a task switch occurred. The operating system needs to have special support built in to save/restore the additional registers for context switches.


Quote:
Your statement if you stand by it affects sse2 just as much as the x86-64 platform, so, I ask you, if you wouldnt support 64 bit x86, how can you justify sse2?

SSE2 is built into the Intel compiler of course. Did AMD grow a compiler team recently? Sure you can always specifically write in assembly to use MMX, SSE, and SSE2. But this is not required. Let the compiler handle it for you.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 15, 2002 2:10:18 AM

Quote:
What time? Run the installer for the Intel compiler, check a box, and hit "Rebuild all." The Intel compiler does a great job at using SSE2 without the need to do any special programming. Is AMD planning on releasing a similar compiler for x86-64?

I would imagine so, but all the x86-64 features need is a recompile, making it potentially as simple as sse2.

Quote:
You also need an operating system that supports it. Even if an application could somehow manage to switch into 64-bit mode without operating system support, it would get completely screwed up whenever a task switch occurred. The operating system needs to have special support built in to save/restore the additional registers for context switches.

Actually the jurys out on that, The hammer reportedly can switch between 64 bit and 32 bit mode rather quickly, and we have know idea what its os requirements will be, or if the os has to support 64 bit mode to use it, a good example would be that an os does not need to use sse2 for your cpu to take advantage of it.

Quote:
SSE2 is built into the Intel compiler of course. Did AMD grow a compiler team recently? Sure you can always specifically write in assembly to use MMX, SSE, and SSE2. But this is not required. Let the compiler handle it for you.

That is besides the point, you make 64 bit extensions seem poor because you have to recompile to get them, but sse2 is the exact same thing, if there is no AUTOMATIC compiler for x86-64 that is a problem, but it is not a problem x86-64 itself.


"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
March 15, 2002 2:11:06 AM

Quote:
A little off-topic, I noticed when you address Ray, you always seem to double the Y in his name. Is that a typo or some kind of call or nick you call him with?


When I first read his name I thought it had 2 y's, by the time I realized it had one I had grown into the habit.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
March 15, 2002 2:12:08 AM

Quote:
The amount of memory in everyone's computers is currently less than the maximum amount of memory that can be addressed by 32-bit processors. As a software engineer, it would be a waste of my time to make a 64-bit version.


for the last time ray, and please dont make the same mistake another time.


Hammers 64 bit mode offers MORE than just larger addressing space, so quit judging it based on only that factor.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
March 15, 2002 2:22:37 AM

Quote:
I would imagine so, but all the x86-64 features need is a recompile, making it potentially as simple as sse2.

AMD does not have a compiler team. From where is this compiler coming?


Quote:
Actually the jurys out on that, The hammer reportedly can switch between 64 bit and 32 bit mode rather quickly, and we have know idea what its os requirements will be, or if the os has to support 64 bit mode to use it, a good example would be that an os does not need to use sse2 for your cpu to take advantage of it.

It is a definate requirement that any technology requiring new registers must be supported by the operating system, if that operating system performs multitasking.

Multitasking is implemented in Windows, and in fact all modern OSes, by savings all registers in the current thread and restoring the register values for the next thread, which were previously saved. This is known as context switching.

If the registers for any new technology, such as SSE2 or x86-64, are not saved during context switches, they will be corrupted whenever there are two or more threads running that use these registers. The values will not get saved and the two threads will overwrite each other's register values. In short, the applications will crash. Thus, operating system support is a requirement.

To preemptively address a question that might come up: Yes, support was added to Windows and Linux specifically for SSE2. Without such support, it would not have been usable.


Quote:
That is besides the point, you make 64 bit extensions seem poor because you have to recompile to get them, but sse2 is the exact same thing, if there is no AUTOMATIC compiler for x86-64 that is a problem, but it is not a problem x86-64 itself.

If there is no compiler support for x86-64, that is a serious problem for the x86-64 platform. The instruction set cannot exist by itself without any support. The support of a compiler and operating system is a requirement for its success in the modern world.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 15, 2002 2:28:48 AM

Quote:
Hammers 64 bit mode offers MORE than just larger addressing space

Yes, it offers some performance enhancements. However, I am not going to waste my time building a completely new version of an application simply for a performance enhancement; even if it is a 20% enhancement (which has yet to actually be shown.) Completely new versions are usually produced for completely new platforms that cannot run any of the current versions; and then, only if a business case can be made showing that there would be sufficient sales to make a profit after the cost of engineering, marketing, and sales. If that x86-64 processor can run my applications perfectly fine as is, I am not going to waste my time making a new version for it.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 15, 2002 2:37:03 AM

Do they not have compilers which can compile 3dnow?

If amd has no compiler team, where did these 3dnow compilers come from? The x86-64 compiler could potentially come from the same sources.


Quote:
It is a definate requirement that any technology requiring new registers must be supported by the operating system, if that operating system performs multitasking.

Multitasking is implemented in Windows, and in fact all modern OSes, by savings all registers in the current thread and restoring the register values for the next thread, which were previously saved. This is known as context switching.

If the registers for any new technology, such as SSE2 or x86-64, are not saved during context switches, they will be corrupted whenever there are two or more threads running that use these registers. The values will not get saved and the two threads will overwrite each other's register values. In short, the applications will crash. Thus, operating system support is a requirement.


I will have to take your word for that, however there is word of a windows for x86, check the inquirer for details.

(there are driver database entries for x86-64 etc interesting read).

Quote:
If there is no compiler support for x86-64, that is a serious problem for the x86-64 platform. The instruction set cannot exist by itself without any support. The support of a compiler and operating system is a requirement for its success in the modern world.


A: your comment did not mention anything about compilers, your comment was x86-64 IN ITSELF was not worth while, due to lack of os support mainly, 3d now has compilers, there is no reason to assume x86-64 will not have any compilers, of course it has compilers otherwise, as you have said, it would be useless.


"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
March 15, 2002 2:40:16 AM

Quote:
Yes, it offers some performance enhancements. However, I am not going to waste my time building a completely new version of an application simply for a performance enhancement; even if it is a 20% enhancement (which has yet to actually be shown.) Completely new versions are usually produced for completely new platforms that cannot run any of the current versions; and then, only if a business case can be made showing that there would be sufficient sales to make a profit after the cost of engineering, marketing, and sales. If that x86-64 processor can run my applications perfectly fine as is, I am not going to waste my time making a new version for it.

-Raystonn


And this is the stance I take issue with ray, the EXACT same statement can be made for sse2 support, yet you ardently support sse2, so again I ask you, how can you justify such a hypocritical position.

You act as if the fact that there is no compiler for x86-64(which isnt even out yet, so you dont even know if there will or will not, and I say there must be because without some type of compiler there is no such thing as x86-64) means that it is completely useless. From what I have read about hammer, it would appear that 64 bit and 32 bit modes are very easy to use and interchangable, for all we know you could enable 64 bit support in the os with a simple patch, so I ask why you so quickly dismiss the technology when you have so little data on it.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
March 15, 2002 3:12:28 AM

Quote:
Do they not have compilers which can compile 3dnow?

If amd has no compiler team, where did these 3dnow compilers come from? The x86-64 compiler could potentially come from the same sources.

There are no professional Windows compilers that support 3dnow. Most certainly VC++ (the compiler used by 99.9% of Windows programmers) does not support it. There are no plugins for it either.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 15, 2002 3:25:25 AM

OK perhaps I am wrong here, but...

Since SuSe is developing the necessary code, compilers, etc for Linux, That's a large market right there supporting X86-64.

Add to this the fact that existing Linux apps can run on the 64 bit version, and it's an IDEAL situation for companies. What you are running into Ray, with the Itanium, I guess, is the lack of developer support relatively speaking. Yes, Intel has a lot of clout, so they have been avble to get some developers behind it, but, I suspect that within a year of X86-64 there may very well be more apps ported to it than ported to Itanium.

I understand, also, that Itanium is really targetted at a more specific market; a far more specialized market. Still, while you can find some fault with the yet to be released Hammer, the same can be said for the Itanium. Except Hammer is fine running 32 bit apps OR 64 bit apps OR a combination of the two. That to mee is the beauty of the Hammer AND where I think AMD made a very smart move.

If there are no 64 bit versions of Windows ready when Hammer rolls out the factory doors, that shouldn't be a problem for it. It will still gain rapid market acceptance if it's close to what many people expect.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 15, 2002 3:26:07 AM

Quote:
And this is the stance I take issue with ray, the EXACT same statement can be made for sse2 support, yet you ardently support sse2, so again I ask you, how can you justify such a hypocritical position.

This is not a hypocritical position at all. Supporting SSE2 does not require a new application. You simply add it as an optional module to your application. On the other hand, x86-64 support cannot be added as an 'option' in an application. Your application is either IA32 (standard 32-bit) or x86-64.

I am not going to go through the hassle of maintaining two separate projects just for a slight performance increase on one set of processors that a small percentage of users will have. This is not an efficient use of my time.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 15, 2002 3:31:21 AM

And what about when 30% of your customers have or are buying that processor? Are you still going to hold that position when your competition is supporting that percentage of the market?

One aspect of software development is customer support.

If two programs do essentially the same thing, but one is more compatible with your system....which will you buy?

Couple that with the competitiveness of the software market and I think we may start seeing a nice transition starting later next year. Hopefully faster than SSE2 support has gained momentum since SSE2 is still not supported all that much even today.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 15, 2002 3:34:46 AM

Quote:
Since SuSe is developing the necessary code, compilers, etc for Linux, That's a large market right there supporting X86-64.

Add to this the fact that existing Linux apps can run on the 64 bit version, and it's an IDEAL situation for companies.

I would hardly call Linux ideal for the commercial sector. The open source community does not like paying for anything. In fact, many Linux projects have been cancelled for lack of a business case. If AMD wants to try to dominate the Linux scene, they are free to do so. I would call it a tiny market, but that would be giving it too much credit. There is no market in Linux.


Quote:
What you are running into Ray, with the Itanium,

We are not discussing the Itanium here. x86-64 does not compare nor compete with the Itanium. They are completely separate markets.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 15, 2002 3:41:49 AM

Quote:
And what about when 30% of your customers have or are buying that processor?

I do not see that happening.


Quote:
Are you still going to hold that position when your competition is supporting that percentage of the market?

My applications will be supported just fine on the Hammer as a 32-bit application. Why should I spend a significant amount of time creating an x86-64 version when I could invest my time in the next project?


Quote:
If two programs do essentially the same thing, but one is more compatible with your system....which will you buy?

Are you saying the Hammer is not going to be 'compatible' with 32-bit applications? Your argument here does state that. I am going to assume you did not think out this argument very well.


Quote:
Couple that with the competitiveness of the software market and I think we may start seeing a nice transition starting later next year. Hopefully faster than SSE2 support has gained momentum since SSE2 is still not supported all that much even today.

On the contrary, Windowx XP has SSE2 support built in. So do nVidia's Detonator drivers for OpenGL and DirectX. Every time you use Windows XP or any OpenGL or DirectX application/game with an nVidia card you are using SSE2. There is a large amount of support in existence today.

At any rate, comparing an instruction set that can be added on to existing applications with one that requires the operating system to be in a new 64-bit mode is not fruitful. These are two totally different things. One (SSE2) can be added as an optional module for certain features. The other (x86-64) requires the entire application to be built as x86-64.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 15, 2002 4:40:00 AM

Quote:
In reply to:

If two programs do essentially the same thing, but one is more compatible with your system....which will you buy?

Are you saying the Hammer is not going to be 'compatible' with 32-bit applications? Your argument here does state that. I am going to assume you did not think out this argument very well.


No I said more compatible ie. One program supports x86-64 in 64 bit mode and the other only supports standard 32 bit mode. And here I thought I was pretty clear ahh well:) 

Mark-



When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 15, 2002 4:44:06 AM

Quote:
I would hardly call Linux ideal for the commercial sector. The open source community does not like paying for anything. In fact, many Linux projects have been cancelled for lack of a business case. If AMD wants to try to dominate the Linux scene, they are free to do so. I would call it a tiny market, but that would be giving it too much credit. There is no market in Linux.


Hmmm...and here we have SUN moving to Linux and the government of Germany moving to Linux for most of their servers. I don't call either of these small potatoes.

As for free software I tend to agree with you that it in many ways is an insupportable concept. But then, SuSe isn't free now, is it? Most of the major Linux distributions are moving away from free it seems. They are still open source for the most part, but they aren't free.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 15, 2002 4:58:14 AM

If it works fine in 32-bit mode and performs good enough to get the job done, it will sell. There is very little justification in spending a great deal of money (time is money) on presenting a more optimized version for a small minority of processors on the market. If it was a simple recompile using the tools that are already being used by software developers, then it would be a no-brainer. If it involves any additional code, then it is just a no-go.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 15, 2002 5:00:18 AM

Quote:
and here we have SUN moving to Linux and the government of Germany moving to Linux for most of their servers. I don't call either of these small potatoes.

There certainly is a business case to sell hardware to these people. Sun is mostly the hardware business. I do not, however, see a market for commercial software here.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 15, 2002 6:15:26 AM

holy christ, how many times i gotta say it Ray. AMD will have an x86-64 windows OS upon release.
Next time this comes up i will bold type it and increase the font size so ya dont forget, so we can avoid this coming up again. As far as compilers, havnt heard a thing. Let you know.
The latest offerings from Intel are still way too expensive for me. I can take the latest AMD chip and save a lot, and get performance within 10%.

From pricewatch:

$464 - Pentium 4 2.2GHz Sock 478
$294 - Athlon XP 2100

** awaits the usual FUD **



Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.
March 15, 2002 11:08:40 AM

"Current economy has caused these prices. When it stabilizes, we will see the prices rise."
What would Ray say, from what I got last time I had asked.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
March 15, 2002 11:35:01 AM

The thing is, the Hammer is not going to be a minority. The Hammer is probably going to be the most popular CPU since the original Pentium.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
March 15, 2002 11:42:25 AM

Quote:
If it works fine in 32-bit mode and performs good enough to get the job done, it will sell.



Exactly my point Ray. Hammer offers a terrific 64 bit uipgrade option. Get it for your small to medium size servers and existing 43 bit software. Upgrade your software as it moves to 64 bit versions. Less expensive upgrade path AND a logical upgrade path.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 15, 2002 11:46:04 AM

Quote:
My applications will be supported just fine on the Hammer as a 32-bit application. Why should I spend a significant amount of time creating an x86-64 version when I could invest my time in the next project?


Why spend time recompiling for sse2 as well then, ray you are missing my point.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
March 15, 2002 11:53:34 AM

Quote:
Why spend time recompiling for sse2 as well then, ray you are missing my point.


No Mat, Ray's contention is multifols

1. Recompiling for Hammer is much more labor intensive

2. When a program is recompiled to include SSE2 support that doesn't limit it's use on processors that do not support SSE2; when apps are recompiled for 64bit Hammer they will only run on X86-64.

3. It's too much work on software companies' parts to distribute a 32 bit version and a 64 bit version as well.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 15, 2002 12:01:30 PM

Quote:
1. Recompiling for Hammer is much more labor intensive

2. When a program is recompiled to include SSE2 support that doesn't limit it's use on processors that do not support SSE2; when apps are recompiled for 64bit Hammer they will only run on X86-64.

3. It's too much work on software companies' parts to distribute a 32 bit version and a 64 bit version as well.

1: A point which is not against x86-64 itself, but a point I agree.
2: We dont know if this is the case, we will have to wait and see if x86-64 support negates the app running on 32 bit as well.
3. Related to point 2.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
March 15, 2002 12:05:18 PM

Quote:
2: We dont know if this is the case, we will have to wait and see if x86-64 support negates the app running on 32 bit as well.


While 32 apps generally will run in a 64 bit OS (16 bit Windows apps generally ran fine in 32 bit Windows) the reverse is NOT true at all. If a program is a 64 bit program it will NOT run on a 32 bit OS.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 15, 2002 12:14:04 PM

Quote:
While 32 apps generally will run in a 64 bit OS (16 bit Windows apps generally ran fine in 32 bit Windows) the reverse is NOT true at all. If a program is a 64 bit program it will NOT run on a 32 bit OS.


No, I meant that we will see if you can have an app decide at runtime whether to run in 64 bit or 32 bit, kind of like sse2 support, and if you really need a whole different app to make use of x86-64.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
March 15, 2002 12:16:40 PM

That would require compile at runtime and would be very time consuming and lead to many many support issues.

Ask yourself this:

Were there ever 32 bit Windows apps which supported that feature?

NO!

Why?

For the reason I state above as just ONE reason of several probably. Yeah it's a nice dream though, but not really feasible I think.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 15, 2002 12:20:22 PM

alitte Confused about this 64-bit talk...Is XP professional 64-bit... If you have Windows XP Professional and this new Hammer..having everything 64-Bit... will you be able to run everything including 32-bit stuff

thanks, Rob

Once you go AMD, You never Go back!!
March 15, 2002 12:23:04 PM

if XP is not 64-Bit, and you get the 64-Bit Cpu.. What will be the Conflicts. ???

Does it pay to up everything to 64 bit.... what difference does it actually make from a 32-Bit

Once you go AMD, You never Go back!!
March 15, 2002 12:25:10 PM

Quote:
That would require compile at runtime and would be very time consuming and lead to many many support issues.


Why, if an app can or cannot run with sse2 support, and has a code path in both instances, why would x86-64 be any different.

Quote:
Were there ever 32 bit Windows apps which supported that feature?


Thats not a very good comparison seeing as 16 bit windows performance sucks, and the standards would be 32 bit, there is no concievable benifit from having a dual 16/32 bit application. There is however a concievable benifit to having a single app which can detect 64 bit support on startup and then depending on its presence load up one code path or the other.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
March 15, 2002 12:46:43 PM

Quote:
Why, if an app can or cannot run with sse2 support, and has a code path in both instances, why would x86-64 be any different


SSE2 is an extension. 64 bit is actually much more complicated in how it is written in the code. If an app is 64 bit it handles the chip registers differently, etc. With SSE2 and yes, I'm not 100% sure here, it just looks for support on the processor for the extension. If it sees it it uses it (in very layman terms) With 64 bit the program can't just switch it on and off at will. Too much of the program has to be changed to be 64 bit..or to be run at 32 bit.


Quote:
Thats not a very good comparison seeing as 16 bit windows performance sucks, and the standards would be 32 bit, there is no concievable benifit from having a dual 16/32 bit application. There is however a concievable benifit to having a single app which can detect 64 bit support on startup and then depending on its presence load up one code path or the other.


My comparison is spot on correct Mat. When Windows 95 came out most programs were still 16 bit. People who had Windows 3.1 could NOT run the 32 bit Win95 programs, but Win95 users COULD run Win 3.1 apps. Backward compatibility is a given. Forward compatibility is not.

Mark-


When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 15, 2002 12:50:02 PM

Quote:
if XP is not 64-Bit, and you get the 64-Bit Cpu.. What will be the Conflicts. ???

Does it pay to up everything to 64 bit.... what difference does it actually make from a 32-Bit


Rob, There are numerous Hammer overviews at just about all the major hardware tech sites. They all do a reasonable job explaining this.

Windows XP Pro is NOT currently 64bit it's 32 bit.

64 bit support provides for much greater contiguous memory support..something like a terabyte or some ungodly amount. 32 bit is limited to around 4 gigs because it's a geometric progression (in laymans terms) Ray or Mat probably can explain this better.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 15, 2002 12:51:41 PM

Oh and to answer your other question. There should be no conflicts running 32 bit PC apps on Hammer. However, Apps compiled specifically for Hammer (64 bit apps) Will not run on Athlon, P4, or P3.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 15, 2002 1:34:19 PM

Back before windows 95, there was a Windows 3.11 extension set called Win32. Any apps that ran in 32 bit REQUIRED this set or else would not run, as they were 32 Bit apps, and Windows 3.11 was 16 bit normaly.

This lends me to think 2 things. One, they simply need to have a 64 bit extension for current OSes to posibly enable it to be used, however the apps will have to be either 32 bit or 64 bit.

I do not like it Tom you see,
I do not like green PCB.
March 15, 2002 1:39:41 PM

Quote:
The Hammer is probably going to be the most popular CPU since the original Pentium.

That's a bold statement. You're predicting AMD to move from about 20% of the market to over 80% simply with one processor.

Part of what made the Pentium popular was the introduction of Windows 95, enabling computers to be sold to people who would have never bought them before. So, unless there is some revolutionary OS that will simply sell more PCs, and supports only the Hammer, I doubt that will happen.

I do not like it Tom you see,
I do not like green PCB.
!